Spiking food prices have made headlines around the world this year, from eggs in the US to vegetables in India.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index has been slowly increasing over the past six months following declines over much of 2023.
For example, the price of orange juice concentrate in the US was 42% higher in April than it was a year ago, while the price of fresh orange juice in the UK has risen 25% over the last year.
In Greece, the price of olive oil rose by nearly 30% over 2023 and by more than 63% in April of this year.
No single factor alone can explain the rising prices.
But geopolitical conflict, extreme weather events, high input costs and increased demand are all playing a role.
The FAO’s recent Food Outlook report finds that, despite positive forecasts, “global food production systems remain vulnerable to shocks stemming from extreme weather events, geopolitical tensions, policy changes and developments in other markets”.
Carbon Brief has asked a range of scientists and policy experts from around the world what they think are the biggest factors driving spiking global food prices.
These are their responses, first as sample quotes, then, below, in full:
- Prof Elizabeth Robinson: “Whilst one can argue that food crises are not primarily caused by climate or weather, often food price spikes are due to a combination of weather and non-weather related factors.”
- Levi Sucre: “The overexploitation of agricultural lands and the intensive use of agrochemicals have led to a growing need for fertilisers to maintain production, which further increases production costs.”
- Dr Álvaro Lario: “Most food commodity markets present a stable outlook for 2024-25, which should help contain prices for consumers. However…many factors can tip the delicate demand-supply balance.”
- Siraj Hussain: “For long-term and stable food security, the yield has to go up and food losses have to come down.”
- Prof Andrew Challinor: “Put plainly, climate change is beginning to outpace us because it is interacting with our complex interrelated economic and food systems.”
- Dr Rob Vos: “Food prices in global markets are most sensitive to weather conditions and supply disruptions in major producing countries.”
- Prof Alan Matthews: “The rapid recovery of consumer demand following the disruptions caused by the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and tight global markets all contributed.”
- Xiomara Paredes: “In short, every time a new regulation is created, it increases production costs, makes market access difficult and thus makes food products more expensive.”
- Dr Manuel Otero: “Food prices have experienced significant increases due to various interrelated economic, social, environmental and political causes.”
- Dr Shouro Dasgupta: “Conflicts are one of the main reasons behind price shocks…Many of these events have also disrupted supply chains and infrastructure.”
Prof Elizabeth Robinson
Director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Back in 2008, broad underinvestment in the agriculture sector, increasing demand for biofuels, changing diets and speculation – encouraged by declining global food stocks – were already putting longer-term upward pressure on food prices.
The 2008 food crisis was triggered by sequential poor wheat harvests in Australia, a breadbasket country. However, the extreme spike in wheat and rice prices was driven by a combination of export restrictions, panic buying and increased speculation, which amplified the short-term harvest shocks and the longer-term pressures.
More recently, the changing climate, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have disrupted food production and globally integrated food supply chains, putting rapid upwards pressure on food prices. Whilst one can argue that food crises are not primarily caused by climate or weather, often food price spikes are due to a combination of weather and non-weather related factors.
Earlier this year cocoa prices rapidly increased, a consequence of extreme weather conditions, linked in part to El Niño, resulting in multiple poor harvest seasons in west Africa, combined with longer-term pressures, including disease and ageing cocoa trees, and short-term pressures, particularly speculation, exacerbating the situation further.
Given the changing climate, and in particular increasing extremes of heat and precipitation, food price spikes are likely to be an increasingly common feature of our highly integrated global food systems, in which shocks in one part of the world can relatively easily be amplified and transmitted around the globe.
Levi Sucre
Coordinator
Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests
There are several factors causing the increase in food prices worldwide.
Firstly, the high dependency on oil, whose price keeps rising, drives up the costs of food production and transportation. Agricultural machinery, fertilisers and product transportation rely heavily on oil, so any increase in its price directly affects the final cost of food.
Additionally, the overexploitation of agricultural lands and the intensive use of agrochemicals have led to a growing need for fertilisers to maintain production, which further increases production costs.
Monocultures are also degrading the soil, reducing its capacity to produce food sustainably. The lack of crop rotation depletes soil nutrients, diminishing its fertility and forcing farmers to use more fertilisers and pesticides. This not only increases costs but also has negative effects on the environment and health.
The effects of climate change are impacting agricultural production; for example, rising temperatures are disrupting previously predictable agricultural seasons, making crop production more difficult. High temperatures in Mesoamerica continue to destroy crops and reduce food reserves, worsening shortages and driving up prices, affecting nearly 8 million people in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
Furthermore, economic injustice, inequality and lack of equity exacerbate the situation. The people with the least resources are the most affected by rising food prices, putting their food security at risk. On the other hand, small-scale producers, who do not use harmful soil practices, do not receive the necessary support to increase their production. These farmers cannot compete with large companies that dominate the market with their monocultures.
Dr Álvaro Lario
President
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International food prices have declined since their historic peak after the start of the war in Ukraine. According to the recently released biennial FAO Food Outlook, most food commodity markets present a stable outlook for 2024-25, which should help contain prices for consumers. But as the report reminds us, many factors can tip the delicate demand-supply balance, impacting food prices and global food security.
The drop in global food prices does not automatically mean that prices have decreased in real terms in local markets, especially considering the strong depreciation of local currencies in most low- and middle-income countries against a robust US dollar.
This is also true for rural communities in these countries, where 80% of the world’s poorest live. In these areas, people can spend up to 70% of their income on food, leaving them with no capacity to absorb any price hikes and pushing them into poverty and hunger. Since Covid-19 emerged, we have seen multiple crises, such as climate change, conflict and record-high food prices, have compounded to push 122 million more people into hunger.
And, despite the current trend, we must remember how fragile our food systems are. They are increasingly threatened by more frequent and intense weather extremes, and volatile geopolitics. Our food systems are overly concentrated on a few crops, countries and producers, and are inefficient, with significant food losses along the value chain and high levels of food waste at the consumer level.
Siraj Hussain
India’s former agricultural secretary. Trustee.
World Food Programme Trust for India
Food inflation has been a source of major concern for a vast majority of Indians.
It is quite an enigma that even cereals, in which India is surplus, have seen double-digit inflation in the last year. Despite the erratic monsoon in 2023, India produced 137m tonnes of rice. Yet in every month since April 2023, the consumer price index inflation for rice was 11-13%.
In the case of wheat, inflation was more than 12% from April to July 2023. The Indian government released 10m tonnes of wheat under an open market sales scheme to cool down wheat prices and the intervention was quite successful as inflation has come down to about 3-7% since July 2023.
The reasons behind inflation in basic cereals of wheat and rice are not well understood. Despite low monsoon rains in 2023-24 due to El Niño, the production of both was not too low in 2023-24. As per the Indian government, wheat production was 113m tonnes.
The real concern in the basket of food inflation comes from vegetables, where inflation in the last year has reached more than 25%. This is attributed to losses in the supply chain from harvesting to marketing. India’s food surpluses are quite small except for rice and sugar. For long-term and stable food security, the yield has to go up and food losses have to come down.
Prof Andy Challinor
Professor of Climate Impacts.
University of Leeds
Every five years, the UK is mandated to report on climate change risks. The scientific evidence for the second of these reports was published in 2017. It highlighted risks from weather-related shocks to international food production and trade as a key risk.
The final report, which is the responsibility of the government, not scientists, endorsed all the conclusions of the evidence report “with the exception of some of those on food security”. The reason? It said: “The government takes a more optimistic view of the levels of resilience that are achieved through functioning markets and diverse sources of supply.”
In the same month that the government response was written, reports of a UK courgette deficit, resulting from climate extremes abroad, soon deepened into wider concerns across a range of vegetables and rationing was commonplace across supermarkets. The World Economic Forum’s 2017 report on global risks identified extreme weather events – already ranked as the most likely global risk in every WEF report since 2014 – as both the most likely and most impactful risk, after weapons of mass destruction.
Skip forward to 2022, when the evidence for the new UK assessment was published. Amongst other additions, an increased underlying vulnerability to climate risk was identified along with a new specific risk of “risk amplification from the interactions and cascades of named risks across systems and geographies”.
The way we as a society (consumers, citizens, government, businesses) choose to set up our food systems has huge implications for stability and resilience – or lack thereof. The 2022 report makes clear that the UK is struggling to keep pace with climate change impacts because of both the pace of change and the way in which the many potential risks to food systems interact with each other.
Put plainly, climate change is beginning to outpace us because it is interacting with our complex interrelated economic and food systems. Until we find ourselves able to look at the big picture and adjust accordingly, we can expect more of the same.
Dr Rob Vos
Director for Markets, Trade and Institutions.
International Food Policy Research Institute
The war in Ukraine caused world market prices for staple foods, especially wheat and vegetable oils, to skyrocket in the first half of 2022. Since then, however, those world market prices have come down to pre-war levels.
At the same time, consumers around the world have felt soaring domestic food price inflation well into 2023. People in some low- and middle-income countries, such as in Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela, are still seeing the cost of their daily bread and meals going up at high rates today.
What is driving these price fluctuations in global food markets and why are consumer prices not following the same pattern?
Food prices in global markets are most sensitive to weather conditions and supply disruptions in major producing countries. For instance, floods in India caused by the El Niño phenomenon disrupted rice production in India during 2023, pushing up rice prices worldwide.
The war in Ukraine caused shortages in global wheat, maize, sunflower seeds and fertiliser supplies as both Russia and Ukraine are major producers, pushing up wheat, vegetable oil and fertiliser prices.
I should add that the Ukraine war was not the only factor and, in fact, just exacerbated the surge in international food and fertiliser prices induced by the global economic recovery from the Covid-19 recession and the supply chain disruptions (recall the containership pile-up at harbours) that sent oil prices and shipping costs soaring and increasing the cost of farming and food trade worldwide.
Global market prices are further sensitive to misguided policy responses. Governments often respond to expected food supply shortages and price surges by imposing restrictions on exports (such as India’s bans on rice exports in 2023) or lowering import restrictions (as many rice-importing countries did in 2023). While trying to protect their consumers, these “insulation” measures end up just magnifying the price increase.
Why do domestic food prices not necessarily follow the same pattern?
In fact, most countries are relatively insulated from global price shocks as they rely predominantly on their own food production to feed their populations; typically, only 10-15% or less of food consumption is imported.
Domestic conditions for food production and distribution systems thus matter more than global prices. These conditions vary across countries, but countries with the highest rates of consumer price inflation have seen food systems disrupted by intensified conflict (as in Ethiopia, Gaza, Haiti and Sudan, for instance) and those suffering macroeconomic constraints and weak currencies that have kept both general and food price inflation high (e.g. Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, and many highly indebted low-income countries).
Prof Alan Matthews
Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy
University of Dublin Trinity College
Food prices in the EU rose dramatically in 2022 and 2023. EU food prices were 41% higher in May 2023 relative to the price level in 2015, while the overall price level rose by just 26% during this period. The monthly annual rate of food price inflation peaked at 19.2% in the EU in March 2023.
Even higher rates were recorded in central and eastern Europe, with Hungary a particular outlier, with food price inflation of 46% in February 2023. Since then, food prices have not fallen, but are now increasing at a rate below the general inflation rate for the first time in two years.
There have been multiple drivers of this food price inflation. The rapid recovery of consumer demand following the disruptions caused by the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and tight global markets all contributed.
For Europe, the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been particularly important. There was a direct impact through the increased price of energy, and thus fertilisers and fuel, given the EU’s dependence on imports particularly of Russian gas, but also an indirect impact through the knock-on effect of higher world market crop prices due to the subsequent curtailment of Ukrainian exports to the world market.
Extreme weather events have contributed to food price increases. High temperatures and drought badly affected olive oil production in 2022-23 as well as production of cereals in southern Europe, while heavy rains and wet weather have delayed planting and harvests and damaged fruit quality in northern Europe.
Despite these production losses, a March 2024 study in Communications Earth & Environment estimated that the 2022 extreme summer heat had increased food inflation in Europe by 0.43-0.93 percentage points – so making a relatively minor contribution to the overall 19% increase in food prices at that time. Nonetheless, in more normal times that would cause a more noticeable uptick in food prices, and the authors suggest that the warming projected for 2035 could amplify these numbers by 30-50%.
Xiomara Paredes
Executive Director, Latin American and Caribbean Coordinating Association of Small Fair Trade Producers and Workers
The new regulations that the EU has recently implemented, such as the deforestation-free regulation, changes in organic regulation, human rights and environmental due diligence, entail the investment of additional resources, thus raising production costs.
For example, to comply with the deforestation-free regulation, producers must first invest in geolocation equipment and have technical staff who can survey the points or polygons on the plots of each producer member of the organisation. Geolocating all the producers’ plots also takes time and effort that must be diluted in the installed capacity of the producer organisations.
In short, every time a new regulation is created, it increases production costs, makes market access difficult and thus makes food products more expensive.
Dr Shouro Dasgupta
Environmental Economist
Fondazione CMCC
Visiting Senior Fellow
Grantham Research Institute, LSE
The issue of increasing food prices is multifaceted and is due to a complex set of reasons including conflicts, climate change and supply chain disruptions.
Conflicts are one of the main reasons behind price shocks. For instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, known as the breadbasket of Europe, has substantially reduced exports of wheat, maize and sunflower, resulting in food price fluctuations. While global food prices have decreased from their peak levels at the onset of the conflict, they remain higher than the pre-conflict levels.
Climate change, manifested by increasing temperatures and the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme events such as heatwaves, droughts and floods, has led to crop failures and reduced yields in many parts of the world. This, in turn, has pushed up food prices through supply shocks.
Many of these events have also disrupted supply chains and infrastructure, such as roads, and lowered water levels of major rivers such as the Rhine. Whether due to conflicts or climate change, several countries have imposed export bans on major agricultural commodities (for example, India, Myanmar and Russia on rice; Thailand on sugar; Argentina on beef). These restrictions affect countries that are highly dependent on imports the most.
Several policy failures in the global food system also contribute to food inflation. One such issue is the inadequacy of storage facilities, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Another is the concentration of food production in certain regions and on selected crops (60% of the plant-based calorie intake is provided by rice, wheat and maize) and the fact that global food chains are dominated by a small number of multinational corporations.
Dr Manuel Otero
Director-general, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
In recent years, food prices have experienced significant increases due to various interrelated economic, social, environmental and political causes. Armed conflicts have disrupted supply chains and food production and distribution, exacerbating shortages and driving up prices. These conflicts have also displaced millions of people, affecting their ability to produce and access food.
Economic shocks, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and its repercussions, plus the slowdown of economies, have reduced consumers’ purchasing power, decreasing incomes and increasing unemployment, which has raised relative demand and prices.
Extreme weather events, such as droughts and storms, have affected agricultural production, reducing supply and increasing production costs, resulting in higher prices for consumers. Volatility in fertiliser markets, driven by trade restrictions and armed conflict, has also increased agricultural production costs, reflected in higher prices for food products.
Trade restrictions, such as export bans, have exacerbated the global food crisis, limiting international food trade and further driving up prices in global markets. According to our Observatory of Public Policies for Agrifood Systems tool, since the pandemic, food inflation has reached 28% annually on a global average – compared to a general inflation of 19% annually.
This is despite the fact that international food prices fell 9% annually for the same comparison period, suggesting that other economic, political and environmental factors contribute to food inflation.
Latin America and the Caribbean is home to 16 net-exporting and 16 net-food-importing countries, so the region has benefited from the increase in international food prices, but has also been one of the most affected by food insecurity due to factors such as increasing poverty.
The post Experts: What is causing food prices to spike around the world? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Experts: What is causing food prices to spike around the world?
Carbon credit developers, corporate buyers and some leading conservation NGOs are challenging new proposed rules to stop UN carbon credits being wiped out by fire, drought or logging, in what critics have called a “coordinated lobbying campaign” to weaken the nascent market’s push for greater integrity.
According to documents seen by Climate Home News – including a briefing given to government officials – companies, NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) have contested the scientific basis for the move, arguing that stronger protection for carbon reductions could hike project costs and restrict the supply of credits to the market.
The climate benefit of credits that claim to reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions by storing carbon is undone if that carbon is released back into the atmosphere – something known as reversal risk. To protect against such losses and preserve the credibility of the credits’ carbon-offsetting claims, projects are generally required to set aside a reserve of credits that cannot be sold, as a form of insurance.
How these “buffer pools” are calculated has long been a source of contention, especially in forest conservation projects, which many experts say have historically underestimated the risk of carbon losses.
In July, the technical UN panel tasked with drafting rules for the Article 6.4 mechanism, which underpins the credits that countries and companies can use to meet their climate goals, proposed a new system. It would require project developers to size these insurance pools of credits based on local risk values derived from new research published by a group of independent scientists.
UK’s budget juggling trick with rainforest loan for bus-fare cap needs transparency
Its supporters have hailed it as a more rigorous approach than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork and, in some cases, gives significant leeway for project developers to come up with their own data.
“The decision on the reversal risk assessment tool will be crucial,” said Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch. “It would bring a new paradigm for calculating the number of units forwarded to the buffer pool based on empirical data.”
The technical panel is due to discuss the reversal risk tool and its application to a specific set of projects at a five-day meeting in Bonn this week. It is then expected to forward new recommendations to the mechanism’s regulator, the Supervisory Body, for a decision on whether to approve them at a meeting in early October.
The rules are set to be applied initially only to clean cookstove projects, one of the market’s most popular and heavily criticised credit types. They could then be extended to other activities, including programmes to protect forests.
Copy and paste?
More than 30 organisations aired their views in lengthy public submissions to the Article 6.4 mechanism, responding to a call from the UN secretariat for external feedback.
A Climate Home News review of those submissions found that there was significant overlap in their messages and, in several cases, sections of the text, or even entire submissions, were copied and pasted by different organisations. This points to a coordinated effort to flag concerns regarding the new rules.
In one instance, tech giant Apple, a large buyer of nature-based carbon credits, warned against relying on one scientific model and called for rules that let project developers use a variety of risk mitigation tools, rather than surrendering buffer credits, to cover the risk of carbon losses.
Apple’s submission is a lightly-edited version of a separate input presented by the Beyond Alliance, a coalition of corporate buyers and NGOs that promote market-based climate investments. In an apparent oversight in one paragraph, the Beyond Alliance’s name appears in Apple’s submission instead of the tech giant’s.
-
Most “zombie credits” locked out of new UN carbon market after China and India snub
Fears of a flood of environmentally-dubious carbon credits have faded, with most old projects not able to transition to new UN market -
UN’s first Paris Agreement carbon credits face human rights and climate concerns
Civil society groups allege the cookstove project in Myanmar exaggerated its climate impact while maintaining ties with military junta
The Beyond Alliance told Climate Home News that, after receiving input from its members, it shared its final submission, leaving them to decide if and how they wanted to use it. The coalition rejected any characterisation that its submission advocates for a weaker tool and only reflects business concerns.
The Beyond Alliance added that its members received briefings by UNEP, which Climate Home News understands has played an important role in wider efforts to influence the development of the rules underpinning the UN carbon market.
Three experts and a European Union diplomat told Climate Home News that the interventions of the UN agency overwhelmingly supported the views of those with a financial interest in carbon markets.
UNEP’s head of mitigation Gabriel Labbate rejected this accusation. He told Climate Home News that the UN agency contributes technical inputs from a “politically-neutral, science-based perspective” and its positions are grounded in an assessment of environmental integrity and are not shaped by, or aligned with, the financial interests of any market participant.
UNEP, NGOs criticise scientific basis
In mid-July, representatives from UNEP, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) briefed government officials from Canada, the UK, Germany, Costa Rica, Belgium, Nigeria and Peru, according to a webinar readout seen by Climate Home News.
The online event was organised by the Forest & Climate Leaders Partnership (FCLP), an initiative that brings together 41 countries plus the EU.
The speakers voiced strong criticism of the new proposed rules. A technical advisor to Conservation International, a US-based NGO that runs several large-scale carbon offsetting programmes, told participants the Article 6 panel’s approach was “based on bad science”. This, he said, is because it relies on a single model that he claimed is not appropriate to determine buffer pool contributions, according to a presentation seen by Climate Home News.
During a high-level discussion led by UNEP’s Labbate, speakers said the application of measures to manage reversal risk on cookstove projects could “impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities”, according to the readout.
Cookstove programmes issue credits by calculating the greenhouse gas emissions prevented by burning less fuel – usually wood or charcoal – through the use of more efficient stoves. With the new reversal risk tool, these activities would be expected to guard against future carbon losses for the first time under the UN carbon market.
But UNEP, as well as leading NGOs and carbon credit firms, have pushed back against the requirement, arguing this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. Scientists reject that distinction, noting that the wood left unburned is still standing in a forest exposed to the same risks as any other.
At the online briefing, speakers also raised concerns that the tighter approach would be replicated for nature-based carbon projects with a direct impact on the future of large-scale forest conservation credits. The Conservation International advisor called it a “bad precedent”.
Both Conservation International and TNC run carbon credit programmes that aim to protect trees from being cut down. Labbate leads the UN-REDD programme, which supports countries developing forest protection initiatives including through carbon credits, and is co-chair of the expert panel advising the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).
After the webinar, the organisers shared by email a series of “key messages” and draft submissions produced by the three organisations, which participants were invited to consider and adapt in their own inputs to the Article 6.4 consultation process.
Getting the rules ‘right’
In a statement to Climate Home News, Ghana, Paraguay and the UK – which are FCLP co-leads for its work on forest carbon credits – said members of the coalition welcomed expert views from a range of partners to help them understand the potential impact of Article 6.4 rules on the eligibility of forest carbon credits in international markets.
They added that the FCLP does not have a common position on the rules and its members are free to choose whether to attend webinars and use any of the materials circulated.
In a statement to Climate Home News, Conservation International said “getting these rules right is important to the environmental integrity of the carbon market, while ensuring all sectors have a place in it”. It added that the NGO does not dispute the validity of the scientific research underlying the proposed buffer pool, but recommends a broader approach including multiple models and datasets.
A spokesperson for TNC said the organisation had helped clarify complex materials and their potential implications, while decisions on how to respond remained entirely with participating countries.
‘Inconvenient science’
The scientific basis for the disputed reversal risk tool rests on two pieces of research. A peer-reviewed study, published in Nature in May and led by scientists at several US universities, modelled forest carbon-loss risk across the United States and found existing buffer pools there are undersized by an average factor of six.
To extend that approach worldwide, the Article 6.4 panel also drew on a second, global analysis by the same research team, which has not yet completed peer review. That study used satellite images, weather records and computer modelling to estimate a 31-42% chance of forests worldwide losing stored carbon within 100 years, depending on the scenario.
The panel picked one of these scenarios and turned its estimates into fixed risk percentages for individual countries, and in some cases provinces, which projects in those locations would need to apply.
Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change
Critics say the peer-reviewed portion of the research was calibrated on North American forests, and that applying the same approach to other regions relies on a global study that is still going through academic checks.
But, for William Anderegg, professor of biological sciences at the University of Utah and one of the authors of that research, it is the best science currently available. He described it as “light-years better” than assumptions underlying the voluntary carbon market, where risk numbers are not generally based on independent evidence and tend to be incredibly low.
Scientific research, including by Anderegg, has found that buffer pools in forestry projects in the voluntary carbon market are substantially smaller than they should be to adequately protect against future releases of carbon.
“There really seems to be a fairly coordinated campaign to try to weaken the strength of these [Article 6.4] tools and their scientific underpinning,” he told Climate Home News. “It’s a little dispiriting to see folks attack science that’s inconvenient.”
Regulators under pressure?
An EU diplomat told Climate Home News that experts and negotiators working on the Article 6.4 mechanism have faced intense pressure from big carbon credit developers and large parts of the nature-based solutions community.
“It is very clear that they are lobbying against strong rules, and they want to align the Paris Agreement mechanism with the standards of the voluntary carbon market,” the diplomat said. “They have influence, time and money, even more than some governments, so they can be very effective in their efforts.”
Last year, the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, the new market’s regulator, approved rules on the permanence of credits aiming to remove carbon from the atmosphere which critics said were watered down compared to the technical panel’s recommendations. This followed feedback from carbon market firms and conservation NGOs, which submitted dozens of critical views.
EU carbon credits could supercharge world’s clean cooking push, France says
Carbon Market Watch’s Dossi said decisions that strengthen environmental integrity are targeted in particular as they tend to reduce the number of credits that can be issued.
Then, as now, those who opposed tighter rules argued that overly strict safeguards would make some projects too expensive to carry out, with a negative impact on local communities and the climate.
But proponents argue that higher-integrity programmes will drive up market prices, ultimately benefiting everyone.
“If rules ensuring better-quality credits make them somewhat more expensive than they are today, that’s an acceptable consequence, not a reason to weaken the rules, especially since these credits will be used to offset continued emissions,” said Dossi.
Efforts to pull the rule-makers in different directions are expected to intensify in the coming weeks as a decision on the new credit protection system nears.
“I really don’t know how this will turn out in the end,” one veteran carbon market expert said. “What I am sure about is that it will be quite a battle.”
The post Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push appeared first on Climate Home News.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
A relatively ambitious deal to reduce the shipping industry’s 3% of global emissions now looks more likely after four days of closed-door talks in London, observers say.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), which oversees the negotiations, said there had been “constructive discussions” and “genuine willingness within the group to make concrete further progress”.
Em Fenton, senior director at the NGO Opportunity Green who attended the talks last week, said they “demonstrated a strong spirit of solidarity in the face of blatant attempts to undermine the credibility, ambition and equity of a hard-fought multilateral agreement”.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on a “Net-Zero Framework” (NZF) – a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners aimed at incentivising them to use cleaner fuels, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention by US President Donald Trump and threats of US sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
UCL analysis found that, of those who expressed a view at last week’s talks, 38 were in favour of an NZF-style solution while only 17 were against. Those opposed are “consistently composed of strongly fossil fuel-aligned governments”.
An observer of the talks, who did not want to be named, said the countries opposed include the US, Russia, India, Thailand, Argentina, Ecuador and Uruguay, as well as eight oil-rich Gulf nations and shipowner-reliant Liberia and Panama. Governments that support an NZF-style deal include China, Brazil, Mexico, Türkiye, Canada, Australia, Chile, nine African nations, most European countries and small islands.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
UCL’s analysis said it was “reassuring” that governments which had taken strong positions in the media against the NZF were being more compromising in the negotiations.
Tweaks are probable
While there is majority support for the NZF, UCL said adopting it would be difficult politically. “The process from here could therefore be as much about producing what appears to be a new package, but one that broadly ends up with similar outcomes in relation to objectives,” UCL argued.
But tweaking the NZF, which resulted from years of negotiations, comes with risks, it warned. For example, changes could reduce the new system’s planned support for low-income countries, turning them against it. Fenton said compromising should not mean “abandoning the principle of justice in the maritime transition”.
UCL said the speed at which shipowners must reduce their ships’ emissions or face fees is likely to be reduced in the short-term but raised in the long-term to meet a goal of net zero emissions by mid-century.
-
Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change
With homes, hospitals and water storage destroyed, Palestine’s government says that Gazans have little protection from climate impacts and sets conditional emissions targets -
More support needed to power Africa’s food systems with renewables, experts say
Renewable energy could help African food businesses boost productivity and competitiveness, but the upfront cost, fragmented markets and limited financing stand in the way -
Loss and damage fund urged to hold crisis meeting on Nepal
The new fund is coming under pressure from developing nations to respond quickly to climate disasters rather than just financing longer-term projects
This was a compromise put forward by NZF-supporter Brazil. However, an analysis by the the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) has found that this change would lead to more overall emissions than the original NZF trajectory.
UCL has warned it could incentivise liquefied natural gas as a shipping fuel over greener options, which include hydrogen-based methanol and ammonia.
Analysis by UCL and the Rocky Mountain Institute suggests that, while a slower start to the NZF would reduce transport costs in the short term, it would increase them later due to the costs involved in switching the industry over from more polluting fuel to cleaner fuel.
NZF won’t meet emissions goals
IMarEst’s analysis finds that even in its current form – the most ambitious deal on the table – the NZF will not be sufficient for shipping to meet its emissions reduction goals.
It says that only a Pacific proposal to place a levy on ships’ total emissions – rather than just those above a certain level – would meet the industry’s targets to reduce emissions 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reach net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”. This is highly unlikely to be adopted.
Additional talks will be held from November 23-27 and from November 30-December 3 before a potentially final round of official negotiations begins on December 4.
The post London talks raise hopes for green shipping deal appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance
At a key leaders’ summit in Palau, Pacific island nations burdened by worsening climate change impacts and costly fossil fuel imports called for November’s COP31 climate summit to deliver finance to help the region transition to renewable energy and build more resilient communities.
Heads of government from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – which includes COP31 co-president Australia – met in Palau’s capital Koror for a week-long summit, where they demanded access to climate finance, ocean action and a regional boost for renewables at COP31.
Palau’s president Surangel Whipps Jr. said during a plenary session that the Pacific must focus on delivering climate and ocean commitments. “It will require greater regional leadership, stronger regional coordination and, above all, unity of purpose,” he said.
The meeting, which ended last Friday, was marked by the absence of some leaders – among them the heads of state of the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji, which will host a preparatory session for COP31 in October (referred to as the pre-COP31). There were also tensions over Taiwan’s participation, with China objecting to its presence as an observer.
The forum’s final declaration, published after it ended and signed by all its members, reaffirms that climate change is the “single greatest threat to the security, livelihoods and wellbeing of Pacific peoples”, and notes “the importance of a focused, high-level declaration” at the pre-COP31 to build “political momentum towards COP31”.
-
Palestine: Israel’s bombing has left Gaza vulnerable to climate change
With homes, hospitals and water storage destroyed, Palestine’s government says that Gazans have little protection from climate impacts and sets conditional emissions targets -
More support needed to power Africa’s food systems with renewables, experts say
Renewable energy could help African food businesses boost productivity and competitiveness, but the upfront cost, fragmented markets and limited financing stand in the way -
Loss and damage fund urged to hold crisis meeting on Nepal
The new fund is coming under pressure from developing nations to respond quickly to climate disasters rather than just financing longer-term projects
Australia and Pacific islands have invited world leaders to attend the pre-COP31 gathering, which will be held in Fiji and Tuvalu from October 5 to 8. While usually a technical meeting for negotiators, the island nations aim to issue a political declaration at the gathering calling for strong outcomes in Türkiye.
Chris Bowen, Australia’s climate minister and COP31 president of negotiations, said in a speech during the Pacific forum that his country is “determined to use COP31 to progress the agenda to make it easier for countries to access the climate finance they need”.
“We won’t miss the opportunity to ensure COP31 is a Pacific COP. Not just because of the location of pre-COP but because of the agenda we are shaping through the Action Agenda at COP31,” he said.
The Action Agenda is a large portfolio of climate initiatives and coalitions uniting governments, businesses and civil society outside of the formal negotiations on everything from health to methane emissions.
Renewable energy investment plan
Announced a year ago, the island nations launched a $14-billion investment plan for a “100% Renewable Blue Pacific” at the forum in Palau. The plan lists strategic projects that would reduce the region’s high dependence on fossil fuel imports, whose soaring costs have become a major burden since the Iran war.
The projects include a $52-million programme managed by Australia to develop off-grid renewables in remote communities across the Pacific, as well as a $100-million blended finance fund aimed at supporting private-sector investments in wind and solar, among others.
Currently, some countries in the Pacific are spending up to a quarter of their GDP importing diesel to power electricity generation, according to a new report by the University of New South Wales in Australia. The investment plan launched at the forum aims to reduce these costs by adding 2.2 gigawatts of renewable generation and around 9 gigawatt hours of electricity storage.
To channel funds into the region, the plan also highlights the role of the recently established Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF), a regional fund that seeks to swiftly disburse funds to climate-vulnerable communities at the local level. Bowen said he would promote the facility to world leaders attending COP31 and “ask for their support”.
Call to transition away from fossil fuels
Separately, the forum endorsed the Belau Declaration which emphasises the need to keep the 1.5C Paris Agreement temperature goal alive. A UN report last week showed that overshooting this limit is now inevitable, but deep emissions cuts could still bring global temperatures back down by the end of the century.
Pacific nations expect to rally support for this declaration at the pre-COP, with Fiji’s climate minister Lynda Tabuya saying in a statement: “Palau is where we build the political mandate. Pre-COP is where we take it to the world.”
The political declaration also says that countries must accelerate the global transition away from fossil fuels “towards a renewable energy future”, and calls for greater recognition of the importance of ocean health in addressing climate change.
UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot
As part of the forum’s outcomes in Palau, countries also noted Tuvalu’s efforts to host the second global conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which will gather government representatives in April next year to follow up on this year’s inaugural conference in Santa Marta, Colombia.
Speaking to journalists at the forum, Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu questioned Australia’s role in talks about phasing out fossil fuels at COP31, adding that “the very least a country like Australia should be doing is stopping future expansion, and it’s not doing that”. During the PIF, the country approved the extension of a major mine that digs and exports coal for steel-making, giving it permission to keep producing until 2055.
Rising seas trigger “development emergency”
As leaders met in one of the world’s regions most threatened by sea-level rise, UN Secretary-General António Guterres released a new report warning that rising seas are now “one of the most profound threats to populations around the world in developed and developing states alike”.
Presenting the report at UN headquarters in New York, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development Navid Hanif said rising sea levels are not a “future risk any more” but an accelerating “development emergency” that could hinder progress in vulnerable regions like the Pacific and least developed countries.
The report warns that seas are rising “faster than at any point in recorded history”, with 2024 setting a new record of 5.9 millimetres. This has been driven by human-induced climate change mainly through a process known as thermal expansion – where rising heat causes the ocean to expand – as well as the melting of ice sheets.
Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31
The report notes that about 1.2 billion people around the world are exposed to coastal flooding, and says some low-lying islands in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Fiji are already facing forced relocations. Globally, rising seas could cost more than $1 trillion every year by 2050, it adds.
“We cannot stop sea level rise this century but we can determine how much worse it becomes. About half a metre of sea level rise is already locked in in this century because of warming that has already occurred, but beyond that our choices matter enormously,” Hanif told journalists.
Bill Hare, CEO of think-tank Climate Analytics, said the report was a “wake-up call” to the leaders of high-emitting countries that their failure to cut carbon emissions is “creating major risks for the future alongside the impacts we can already observe around us”.
Guterres is set to host a high-level meeting on addressing the threat of sea level rise this month during the UN General Assembly, where countries are expected to adopt a declaration that calls for stronger action, expanded access to finance and “ongoing dialogue” to tackle the issue.
The post At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance appeared first on Climate Home News.
At regional summit, Pacific islands ask for COP31 support for clean energy and finance
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits